Conservation Reserve Program, 34883-34886 [2015-14988]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 2015 / Notices
determined necessary to prevent the
spread of the pest or disease, or
requiring the objects to be accompanied
by a permit issued by the Secretary prior
to movement. The USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
administers the regulations to
implement the PPA.
Citrus greening, also known as
Huanglongbing disease of citrus, is
considered to be one of the most serious
citrus diseases in the world. Citrus
greening is a bacterial disease that
attacks the vascular system of host
plants. This bacterial pathogen can be
transmitted by grafting and, under
laboratory conditions, by parasitic
plants. The pathogen can also be
transmitted by two insect vectors in the
family Psyllidae, one of which is
Diaphorina citri Kuwayama, the Asian
citrus psyllid (ACP). ACP can also cause
economic damage to citrus in groves
and nurseries by direct feeding. Both
adults and nymphs feed on young
foliage, depleting the sap and causing
galling or curling of leaves. High
populations feeding on a citrus shoot
can kill the growing tip.
Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—
Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus
Psyllid’’ (7 CFR 301.76 through 301.76–
11), APHIS restricts the interstate
movement of regulated articles from
quarantined areas to control the
artificial spread of citrus greening and
ACP to noninfested areas of the United
States. The regulations contain
requirements that involve information
collection activities, including a
compliance agreement, limited permit,
Federal certificate, recordkeeping,
labeling statement, the application of a
tag to the consignee’s waybill, 72-hour
inspection notification, and cancellation
of certificates, permits, and compliance
agreements.
We are asking the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
approve our use of these information
collection activities for an additional 3
years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit
comments from the public (as well as
affected agencies) concerning our
information collection. These comments
will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, through use, as
appropriate, of automated, electronic,
mechanical, and other collection
technologies; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Estimate of burden: The public
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.12
hours per response.
Respondents: Commercial nurseries/
operations in U.S. States or U.S.
Territories quarantined for citrus
greening or ACP.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 621.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 23.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 13,882.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 1,785 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours
may not equal the product of the annual
number of responses multiplied by the
reporting burden per response.)
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
June 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–15005 Filed 6–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Conservation Reserve Program
Commodity Credit Corporation,
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Record of decision.
AGENCY:
This notice presents a
summary of the Record of Decision
(ROD) regarding the alternative selected
for implementation from the
Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
(SPEIS) for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). CRP is a voluntary
program that supports the
implementation of long-term
conservation measures designed to
improve the quality of ground and
surface waters, control soil erosion, and
enhance wildlife habitat on
environmentally sensitive agricultural
land. The Farm Service Agency (FSA)
administers CRP on behalf of the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34883
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
The ROD was signed on April 17, 2015,
but will not be implemented for at least
30 days following publication of this
notice.
DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The CRP SPEIS, including
appendices and this ROD, are available
on the FSA Environmental Compliance
Web site at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/
FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=
ecrc&topic=ep-cd. More detailed
information on CRP is available from
FSA’s Web site at: https://www.fsa.usda.
gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=
copr&topic=crp.
Requests for copies of the Final SPEIS
and this ROD may be obtained from Nell
Fuller at Nell.Fuller@wdc.usda.gov, or
mail, Nell Fuller, USDA FSA, Mail Stop
0501, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nell
Fuller, National Environmental
Compliance Manager; phone: (202) 720–
6853.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
FSA prepared a Final SPEIS for CRP
and a Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register on
December 23, 2014. On behalf of the
CCC, FSA provides CRP participants
with rental payments and cost-share
assistance under contracts that extend
from 10 to 15 years. CCC funding for
CRP is governed by acreage caps set by
the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law
113–79 (2014 Farm Bill). Technical
support is provided by:
• USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service;
• USDA National Institute for Food
and Agriculture;
• U.S. Forest Service;
• State forestry agencies;
• Local soil and water conservation
districts; and
• Other non-federal providers of
technical assistance.
Producers can enroll in CRP using one
of two procedures:
(1) Offer lands for General Sign-up
enrollment during specific sign-up
periods and compete with other offers
nationally, based upon the
Environmental Benefits Index; or
(2) Enroll environmentally desirable
land to be devoted to certain
conservation practices (CPs) under CRP
Continuous Sign-up provisions, if
certain eligibility requirements are met,
or by enrolling eligible land under the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP), a federal-state
partnership under CRP.
As of September 2014, there were
nearly 25.5 million acres enrolled in the
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
34884
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 2015 / Notices
CRP: 19.7 million acres under General
Sign-up and 5.7 million acres under
Continuous Sign-up, including 1.3
million acres in CREP and 0.3 million
acres in the Farmable Wetlands
Program, a program under CRP.
Under the Proposed Action, as
defined in the SPEIS, FSA would
implement changes to the CRP resulting
from the 2014 Farm Bill, which extends
the enrollment authority for the CRP to
2018, as well as other discretionary
measures designed to improve the
functionality and conservation benefits
of CRP. The CRP SPEIS tiers from the
CRP Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement and associated ROD
completed in 2010. The SPEIS analyzed
the impacts associated with
implementing the changes to CRP and
in developing new regulations. The No
Action Alternative (continuation of
current CRP to include those nondiscretionary changes required by the
2014 Farm Bill) was also analyzed, and
provides a management and
environmental baseline.
Proposed Action, with one exception
and one clarification. The exception is
that authorizing emergency haying or
grazing on CP 25, ‘‘Rare and Declining
Habitat,’’ during severe drought
conditions will not be implemented.
This decision was made after comparing
the overall environmental impacts and
other relevant information, including
feedback received, with regard to the
reasonable alternatives considered in
the CRP SPEIS. The clarification was
that FSA intends to use Primary Nesting
Season (PNS) provisions that are
currently in place to clarify the language
provided in the 2014 Farm Bill for birds
that are economically significant, in
significant decline, or conserved in
accordance with Federal or State law
(see 16 U.S.C. 3833(b)(5)(B)). FSA will
continue to work with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to address any need to
amend PNS dates. The following briefly
describes the purpose and need for the
proposed programmatic changes and the
alternatives considered.
The Decision
After reviewing comments from
interested individuals and other State
and Federal agencies, FSA decided to
implement changes to CRP resulting
from the 2014 Farm Bill, which extends
the enrollment authority for CRP to
2018, and discretionary measures
designed to improve the functionality
and conservation benefits of CRP, as
well as other changes described in the
Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action
is to implement programmatic changes
to the CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm
Bill and other discretionary program
provisions. The need for the Proposed
Action is to fulfill the FSA’s
responsibility to administer CRP while
improving CRP’s functionality and
maintaining its conservation benefits.
Alternatives Considered
Some elements of the 2014 Farm Bill
are non-discretionary, meaning
implementation is mandatory and
specifically required by the 2014 Farm
Bill. As FSA has no decision-making
authority over these non-discretionary
aspects of the 2014 Farm Bill, they are
assessed in the SPEIS as part of the No
Action Alternative. Other elements of
the 2014 Farm Bill provide overall
guidance, but details of implementation
are left to FSA’s discretion. These
discretionary aspects of the 2014 Farm
Bill form the Proposed Action
Alternative. In addition, as described in
the Proposed Action Alternative, FSA
proposes to implement additional
discretionary measures for targeting
enrollment and to expand the flexibility
of emergency haying and grazing.
Overview of Changes to CRP From the
2014 Farm Bill
The changes in the 2014 Farm Bill
that are administrative in nature, would
not result in major changes to the
administration of CRP, or have been
addressed in other environmental
assessments and eliminated from
detailed analysis, are described in the
first table. A summary of the proposed
changes to CRP and how the changes are
addressed in the SPEIS as part of the No
Action Alternative or Proposed Action
Alternative are described in the second
table.
LIST FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Provision
Description
Maximum Enrollment ..........................................
Farmable Wetlands Program ..............................
Reduces maximum enrollment gradually from 32 to 24 million acres by fiscal year 2017.
Creates a permanent program from the pilot program established by 2008 Farm Bill and sets
enrollment cap at 750,000 acres.
Reduces payment authority to $10 million, allows for incentive payments.
Provides contract termination opportunity in 2015 for contracts that have been in place for at
least 5 years, with exceptions.
Requires rental payment reduction of at least 25 percent. No payment reduction for beginning
farmers or ranchers for grazing.
Provides authority for $33 million to facilitate transfer of land from retiring or retired owners to
beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, or military veteran farmers or
ranchers.
Allows annual grazing for control of invasive plants.
Allows for intermittent and seasonal use of vegetative buffer practices incidental to agricultural
production on adjacent lands.
Tree Thinning ......................................................
Early Termination of Contracts ...........................
Managed Harvesting, Prescribed and Routine
Grazing Payment Reduction.
Transition Option ................................................
Prescribed Grazing Frequency ...........................
Intermittent and Seasonal Use ...........................
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CRP
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Provision
Description
No Action Alternative
Grasslands Eligibility and Authorized Activities ..
Final Year Contract .............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Allows up to 2 million acres of certain grasslands to be eligible for CRP under Continuous
Sign-up. Authorized activities differ from other CRP contracts.
Allows enrollment in Conservation Stewardship Program and the Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program during final year of the CRP contract.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 2015 / Notices
34885
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CRP—Continued
Provision
Description
Emergency Haying and Grazing Payment Reduction.
Removes the requirement to reduce CRP rental payments.
Proposed Action
Targeted Enrollment ...........................................
Managed harvesting Frequency .........................
Routine Grazing Frequency ................................
Emergency Haying and Grazing on Additional
Conservation Practices.
Public Involvement
Public involvement began with the
notice announcing a ‘‘Notice of Intent to
Prepare a Programmatic Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Conservation Reserve Program: Request
for Comments’’ published in the Federal
Register on November 29, 2013 (78 FR
71561–71562). A Web site developed to
compile comments for the project was
activated on the day the Notice of Intent
was released and the official scoping
comment period began. Comments were
received through the project Web site,
email system, mail, fax, and at
www.regulations.gov. The scoping
period ended January 13, 2014. Eight
comment letters were received during
the scoping period from Federal, state,
Proposes the targeted enrollment of environmentally sensitive lands through reverse auctions
or competitive bidding to meet reduced enrollment caps.
Sets minimum frequency of once in 5 years, and maximum frequency of once in 3 years.
Sets maximum frequency to no more than once every 2 years.
Allows emergency haying and grazing on additional CPs during severe drought conditions to
include CP8 (grass waterways), CP21 (filter strips), CP22 (riparian buffers), CP23 (wetland
restoration), CP23A (wetland restoration, non-floodplain), CP27 (farmable wetlands), CP28
(farmable wetland buffers), CP37 (duck nesting habitat), CP39 (constructed wetland), and
CP41 (Flooded prairie farmable wetlands).
and local government agencies, as well
as from private organizations and
members of the concerned public. The
comments could be broken into 55
individual issues covering a range of
topics including proposed 2008 Farm
Bill changes, CRP maximum enrollment
and acreages, regional differences in
haying and grazing impacts, lack of
thorough environmental and
socioeconomic impact analysis in
previous environmental analysis
documentation related to the Farm Bill,
and CRP funding policy. The comments
provided during the scoping period
were considered in defining the
alternatives and the environmental
consequences to ensure feedback was
adequately addressed.
A notice announcing the availability
of the Draft SPEIS was published in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR
41247–41249). This notice of
availability (NOA) provided a summary
of the changes to CRP, the No Action
Alternative, and the Proposed Action
Alternative. Also included in the NOA
was a description of how to provide
comments, as well as a list of the dates,
times, and locations of the five public
meetings that were held as a part of the
public involvement process. Locations
for holding public meetings were
chosen based upon FSA density
analyses of participation in CRP or those
participants potentially impacted by the
proposed changes to CRP. The meeting
locations, dates, and times are shown in
the table below.
Time
Location information
July 21, 2014 .......................
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m ............
July 22, 2014 .......................
August 4, 2014 .....................
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m ............
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m ............
August 5, 2014 .....................
August 6, 2014 .....................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m ............
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m ............
Hilton Garden Inn, Spokane Airport, 9015 West SR Highway 2, Spokane, Washington 99224.
Holiday Inn, Great Falls, 1100 5th Street, South Falls, Montana 59405.
Plains Cotton Cooperative Association, 3301 East 50th Street, Lubbock, Texas
79404.
Stillwater Library, 1107 S. Duck Street, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074.
Courtyard by Marriott and Moorhead Area Conference Center, 1080 28th Avenue,
South, Moorhead, Minnesota 56560.
Eighteen comments were received
during the Draft SPEIS comment period.
Those 18 comments included 75 issues
to be considered in the Final SPEIS. A
Comment Summary Report was
prepared and is included as an
appendix in the CRP SPEIS. The report
provides additional detail on the Draft
SPEIS comment process, a copy of the
NOA, copies of all public meeting
materials, and responses to all 75
substantive issues and how they were
addressed in the Final SPEIS.
The NOA of the Final SPEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
December 23, 2014 (79 FR 76952). A
total of six comment letters or emails
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
were received during the 30 day
comment period. The comments could
be broken down to 12 individual
comments. The comments were
primarily repetitive of concerns
addressed during the Draft SPEIS and
included grassland eligibility
requirements, targeted enrollment, and
emergency haying and grazing of
additional CPs. Those comments were
considered in the decision-making
process.
Impacts Summary
The Final SPEIS evaluates the
potential impacts of the Proposed
Action. Based upon the analyses and
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conclusions presented in the Draft and
Final SPEISs, FSA has determined that
the Proposed Action is environmentally
responsible and reasonable to
implement, and no significant negative
impacts would occur. Anticipated
beneficial and adverse impacts are
discussed below for each of the
elements of the Proposed Action.
Targeted Enrollment
CRP establishes or restores vegetation
to meet the CRP goals of improving
surface water and groundwater quality,
controlling soil erosion, and enhancing
wildlife habitat. Enrolling land in CRP
would be expected to benefit vegetation,
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
34886
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
wildlife, and protected species as
sensitive lands or those with higher
environmental benefits could be
targeted. Soils, surface and
groundwater, wetlands, and floodplains
would benefit similarly and would also
be positively impacted by reduced
fertilizer and pesticide usage and lower
demands on groundwater for irrigation.
Recreation related to wildlife would be
expected to benefit from targeting
environmentally sensitive areas that
benefit wildlife and habitats and surface
water quality on and adjacent to CRP
lands. Air quality would benefit from
enrollment in CRP through reduced
emissions from equipment, greater soil
stability, and increased potential for
long-term carbon sequestration as
compared to typical agricultural
production. No effect to socioeconomic
conditions is anticipated to result from
use of targeted enrollment; however,
general social benefits from
conservation would be realized. Overall,
it is expected that using targeted
enrollment could increase the quality of
lands enrolled in CRP, resulting in
greater environmental benefits. Targeted
enrollment could provide long-term
benefits to areas of sensitive vegetative
communities, wildlife habitat, or water
quality. Such benefits could occur
throughout the U.S. in any ecoregion
where targeting occurred.
Installation and maintenance of CPs
could create temporary, short-term
negative impacts while the work was
ongoing to resources, including
vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
soils, surface and groundwater,
floodplains, wetlands, and air quality.
However, all activities would be
specified in Conservation Plans,
designed by NRCS, which reflect local
conditions and needs for each tract of
land enrolled. Once CPs are established,
long-term beneficial impacts to
resources would be realized.
Managed Harvesting and Routine
Grazing Frequencies
Managed harvesting would be
allowed to occur no more frequently
than once every 3 years, but not less
frequently than once in 5 years. This
would require four states (California,
Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada) that
currently allow managed harvesting
once every 10 years to have more
frequent managed harvesting on new
contracts where managed harvesting
would be used to maintain CRP. The
2014 Farm Bill allows for the State
Technical Committees (STCs) to
establish routine grazing frequencies of
not more than once every 2 years. More
frequent harvesting and grazing could
reduce the growing period between
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jun 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
harvests, which may cause short-term
negative impacts to some types of
vegetation, potentially affecting wildlife
habitat, soil stability, and any adjacent
wetlands, floodplains, or surface waters.
Activities with direct impacts would
vary by ecoregion and species
composition. Long-term benefits of
harvesting and grazing include
maintaining early succession stages, and
improving species diversity,
composition, and function. Wildlife
adapted to early successional habitats
could benefit from more frequent
harvesting and grazing. Grazing could
negatively affect wildlife through
displacement or competition for food
resources. Both grazing and haying
could result in direct mortality to some
wildlife species. Protected species are
not expected to be affected as site
specific Environmental Evaluations on
Conservation Plans would determine
the presence of protected species and
ensure no impacts occur. No effects to
groundwater, air quality, recreation, or
socioeconomic resources are
anticipated. When performed in
accordance with established guidelines,
managed harvesting can be an effective
tool for maintaining early successional
stages of vegetative communities.
Emergency Haying and Grazing on
Additional CP
Consecutive years of emergency
haying or grazing on the same acreage
would reduce the growth period and
could result in long-term negative
impacts to some types of vegetation, in
turn affecting wildlife. Impacts to
wildlife could also include direct
mortality and competition for food
resources. No impacts to protected
species are expected due to use of sitespecific Environmental Evaluations. As
with managed harvesting and routine
grazing, short-term impacts to soils
could occur from reduced vegetation
growth affecting the stability of soils.
Short-term impacts to surface waters,
floodplains, and wetlands could occur
from increased runoff, however,
adherence to site-specific NRCS
Conservation Plans and oversight by
STC would reduce the potential for
long-term impacts to these resources. No
impacts to groundwater are anticipated.
In the short-term, consecutive years of
emergency haying and grazing could
reduce the carbon sequestration
potential of CRP vegetation.
Socioeconomic benefits would result
from enabling producers to maintain
herds during severe droughts.
Rationale for Decision
No significant impacts would occur
from implementation of the Proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Action and no significant adverse
cumulative impacts are expected.
Potential negative impacts will be
minimized by employment of best
management practices specified in
Conservation Plans and through the use
of site-specific Environmental
Evaluations.
Val Dolcini,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency, and
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2015–14988 Filed 6–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Land Between The Lakes Advisory
Board
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Land Between The Lakes
Advisory Board (Board) will meet in
Golden Pond, Kentucky. The Board is
authorized under Section 450 of the
Land Between The Lakes Protection Act
of 1998 (Act) and operates in
compliance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The purpose of the
Board is to advise the Secretary of
Agriculutre on the means of promoting
public participation for the land and
resource management plan for the
recreation area; and environmental
education. Additional Board
information, including the meeting
agenda and the meeting summary/
minutes can be found at the following
Web site: https://
www.landbetweenthelakes.us/about/
working-together/.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Wednesday, July 22, 2015.
All Board meetings are subject to
cancellation. For status of meeting prior
to attendance, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
SUMMARY:
The meeting will be held at
the Land Between The Lakes
Administration Building, 100 Van
Morgran Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.
Written comments may be submitted
as described under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. All comments, including
names and addresses when provided,
are placed in the record and are
available for public inspection and
copying. The public may inspect
comments received at Land Between
The Lakes Adminstrative Building.
Please call ahead to facilitate entry into
the building.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34883-34886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14988]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Conservation Reserve Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice presents a summary of the Record of Decision (ROD)
regarding the alternative selected for implementation from the
Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP is a voluntary program that
supports the implementation of long-term conservation measures designed
to improve the quality of ground and surface waters, control soil
erosion, and enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive
agricultural land. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers CRP on
behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The ROD was signed on
April 17, 2015, but will not be implemented for at least 30 days
following publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The CRP SPEIS, including appendices and this ROD, are
available on the FSA Environmental Compliance Web site at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ecrc&topic=ep-cd. More
detailed information on CRP is available from FSA's Web site at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp.
Requests for copies of the Final SPEIS and this ROD may be obtained
from Nell Fuller at Nell.Fuller@wdc.usda.gov, or mail, Nell Fuller,
USDA FSA, Mail Stop 0501, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20250-0501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nell Fuller, National Environmental
Compliance Manager; phone: (202) 720-6853.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
FSA prepared a Final SPEIS for CRP and a Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2014. On behalf of
the CCC, FSA provides CRP participants with rental payments and cost-
share assistance under contracts that extend from 10 to 15 years. CCC
funding for CRP is governed by acreage caps set by the Agricultural Act
of 2014, Public Law 113-79 (2014 Farm Bill). Technical support is
provided by:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service;
USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture;
U.S. Forest Service;
State forestry agencies;
Local soil and water conservation districts; and
Other non-federal providers of technical assistance.
Producers can enroll in CRP using one of two procedures:
(1) Offer lands for General Sign-up enrollment during specific
sign-up periods and compete with other offers nationally, based upon
the Environmental Benefits Index; or
(2) Enroll environmentally desirable land to be devoted to certain
conservation practices (CPs) under CRP Continuous Sign-up provisions,
if certain eligibility requirements are met, or by enrolling eligible
land under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a
federal-state partnership under CRP.
As of September 2014, there were nearly 25.5 million acres enrolled
in the
[[Page 34884]]
CRP: 19.7 million acres under General Sign-up and 5.7 million acres
under Continuous Sign-up, including 1.3 million acres in CREP and 0.3
million acres in the Farmable Wetlands Program, a program under CRP.
Under the Proposed Action, as defined in the SPEIS, FSA would
implement changes to the CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill, which
extends the enrollment authority for the CRP to 2018, as well as other
discretionary measures designed to improve the functionality and
conservation benefits of CRP. The CRP SPEIS tiers from the CRP
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and associated ROD
completed in 2010. The SPEIS analyzed the impacts associated with
implementing the changes to CRP and in developing new regulations. The
No Action Alternative (continuation of current CRP to include those
non-discretionary changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill) was also
analyzed, and provides a management and environmental baseline.
The Decision
After reviewing comments from interested individuals and other
State and Federal agencies, FSA decided to implement changes to CRP
resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill, which extends the enrollment
authority for CRP to 2018, and discretionary measures designed to
improve the functionality and conservation benefits of CRP, as well as
other changes described in the Proposed Action, with one exception and
one clarification. The exception is that authorizing emergency haying
or grazing on CP 25, ``Rare and Declining Habitat,'' during severe
drought conditions will not be implemented. This decision was made
after comparing the overall environmental impacts and other relevant
information, including feedback received, with regard to the reasonable
alternatives considered in the CRP SPEIS. The clarification was that
FSA intends to use Primary Nesting Season (PNS) provisions that are
currently in place to clarify the language provided in the 2014 Farm
Bill for birds that are economically significant, in significant
decline, or conserved in accordance with Federal or State law (see 16
U.S.C. 3833(b)(5)(B)). FSA will continue to work with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to address any need to amend PNS dates. The following
briefly describes the purpose and need for the proposed programmatic
changes and the alternatives considered.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement programmatic
changes to the CRP resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill and other
discretionary program provisions. The need for the Proposed Action is
to fulfill the FSA's responsibility to administer CRP while improving
CRP's functionality and maintaining its conservation benefits.
Alternatives Considered
Some elements of the 2014 Farm Bill are non-discretionary, meaning
implementation is mandatory and specifically required by the 2014 Farm
Bill. As FSA has no decision-making authority over these non-
discretionary aspects of the 2014 Farm Bill, they are assessed in the
SPEIS as part of the No Action Alternative. Other elements of the 2014
Farm Bill provide overall guidance, but details of implementation are
left to FSA's discretion. These discretionary aspects of the 2014 Farm
Bill form the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition, as described in
the Proposed Action Alternative, FSA proposes to implement additional
discretionary measures for targeting enrollment and to expand the
flexibility of emergency haying and grazing.
Overview of Changes to CRP From the 2014 Farm Bill
The changes in the 2014 Farm Bill that are administrative in
nature, would not result in major changes to the administration of CRP,
or have been addressed in other environmental assessments and
eliminated from detailed analysis, are described in the first table. A
summary of the proposed changes to CRP and how the changes are
addressed in the SPEIS as part of the No Action Alternative or Proposed
Action Alternative are described in the second table.
List From Detailed Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Enrollment........... Reduces maximum enrollment gradually from
32 to 24 million acres by fiscal year
2017.
Farmable Wetlands Program.... Creates a permanent program from the
pilot program established by 2008 Farm
Bill and sets enrollment cap at 750,000
acres.
Tree Thinning................ Reduces payment authority to $10 million,
allows for incentive payments.
Early Termination of Provides contract termination opportunity
Contracts. in 2015 for contracts that have been in
place for at least 5 years, with
exceptions.
Managed Harvesting, Requires rental payment reduction of at
Prescribed and Routine least 25 percent. No payment reduction
Grazing Payment Reduction. for beginning farmers or ranchers for
grazing.
Transition Option............ Provides authority for $33 million to
facilitate transfer of land from
retiring or retired owners to beginning
or socially disadvantaged farmers or
ranchers, or military veteran farmers or
ranchers.
Prescribed Grazing Frequency. Allows annual grazing for control of
invasive plants.
Intermittent and Seasonal Use Allows for intermittent and seasonal use
of vegetative buffer practices
incidental to agricultural production on
adjacent lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Changes to CRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Action Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grasslands Eligibility and Allows up to 2 million acres of certain
Authorized Activities. grasslands to be eligible for CRP under
Continuous Sign-up. Authorized
activities differ from other CRP
contracts.
Final Year Contract.......... Allows enrollment in Conservation
Stewardship Program and the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program during
final year of the CRP contract.
[[Page 34885]]
Emergency Haying and Grazing Removes the requirement to reduce CRP
Payment Reduction. rental payments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted Enrollment.......... Proposes the targeted enrollment of
environmentally sensitive lands through
reverse auctions or competitive bidding
to meet reduced enrollment caps.
Managed harvesting Frequency. Sets minimum frequency of once in 5
years, and maximum frequency of once in
3 years.
Routine Grazing Frequency.... Sets maximum frequency to no more than
once every 2 years.
Emergency Haying and Grazing Allows emergency haying and grazing on
on Additional Conservation additional CPs during severe drought
Practices. conditions to include CP8 (grass
waterways), CP21 (filter strips), CP22
(riparian buffers), CP23 (wetland
restoration), CP23A (wetland
restoration, non-floodplain), CP27
(farmable wetlands), CP28 (farmable
wetland buffers), CP37 (duck nesting
habitat), CP39 (constructed wetland),
and CP41 (Flooded prairie farmable
wetlands).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Involvement
Public involvement began with the notice announcing a ``Notice of
Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Conservation Reserve Program: Request for Comments''
published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71561-
71562). A Web site developed to compile comments for the project was
activated on the day the Notice of Intent was released and the official
scoping comment period began. Comments were received through the
project Web site, email system, mail, fax, and at www.regulations.gov.
The scoping period ended January 13, 2014. Eight comment letters were
received during the scoping period from Federal, state, and local
government agencies, as well as from private organizations and members
of the concerned public. The comments could be broken into 55
individual issues covering a range of topics including proposed 2008
Farm Bill changes, CRP maximum enrollment and acreages, regional
differences in haying and grazing impacts, lack of thorough
environmental and socioeconomic impact analysis in previous
environmental analysis documentation related to the Farm Bill, and CRP
funding policy. The comments provided during the scoping period were
considered in defining the alternatives and the environmental
consequences to ensure feedback was adequately addressed.
A notice announcing the availability of the Draft SPEIS was
published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41247-41249).
This notice of availability (NOA) provided a summary of the changes to
CRP, the No Action Alternative, and the Proposed Action Alternative.
Also included in the NOA was a description of how to provide comments,
as well as a list of the dates, times, and locations of the five public
meetings that were held as a part of the public involvement process.
Locations for holding public meetings were chosen based upon FSA
density analyses of participation in CRP or those participants
potentially impacted by the proposed changes to CRP. The meeting
locations, dates, and times are shown in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Time Location information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 21, 2014........................... 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m......... Hilton Garden Inn, Spokane Airport, 9015
West SR Highway 2, Spokane, Washington
99224.
July 22, 2014........................... 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m......... Holiday Inn, Great Falls, 1100 5th
Street, South Falls, Montana 59405.
August 4, 2014.......................... 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m......... Plains Cotton Cooperative Association,
3301 East 50th Street, Lubbock, Texas
79404.
August 5, 2014.......................... 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m......... Stillwater Library, 1107 S. Duck Street,
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074.
August 6, 2014.......................... 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m......... Courtyard by Marriott and Moorhead Area
Conference Center, 1080 28th Avenue,
South, Moorhead, Minnesota 56560.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen comments were received during the Draft SPEIS comment
period. Those 18 comments included 75 issues to be considered in the
Final SPEIS. A Comment Summary Report was prepared and is included as
an appendix in the CRP SPEIS. The report provides additional detail on
the Draft SPEIS comment process, a copy of the NOA, copies of all
public meeting materials, and responses to all 75 substantive issues
and how they were addressed in the Final SPEIS.
The NOA of the Final SPEIS was published in the Federal Register on
December 23, 2014 (79 FR 76952). A total of six comment letters or
emails were received during the 30 day comment period. The comments
could be broken down to 12 individual comments. The comments were
primarily repetitive of concerns addressed during the Draft SPEIS and
included grassland eligibility requirements, targeted enrollment, and
emergency haying and grazing of additional CPs. Those comments were
considered in the decision-making process.
Impacts Summary
The Final SPEIS evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed
Action. Based upon the analyses and conclusions presented in the Draft
and Final SPEISs, FSA has determined that the Proposed Action is
environmentally responsible and reasonable to implement, and no
significant negative impacts would occur. Anticipated beneficial and
adverse impacts are discussed below for each of the elements of the
Proposed Action.
Targeted Enrollment
CRP establishes or restores vegetation to meet the CRP goals of
improving surface water and groundwater quality, controlling soil
erosion, and enhancing wildlife habitat. Enrolling land in CRP would be
expected to benefit vegetation,
[[Page 34886]]
wildlife, and protected species as sensitive lands or those with higher
environmental benefits could be targeted. Soils, surface and
groundwater, wetlands, and floodplains would benefit similarly and
would also be positively impacted by reduced fertilizer and pesticide
usage and lower demands on groundwater for irrigation. Recreation
related to wildlife would be expected to benefit from targeting
environmentally sensitive areas that benefit wildlife and habitats and
surface water quality on and adjacent to CRP lands. Air quality would
benefit from enrollment in CRP through reduced emissions from
equipment, greater soil stability, and increased potential for long-
term carbon sequestration as compared to typical agricultural
production. No effect to socioeconomic conditions is anticipated to
result from use of targeted enrollment; however, general social
benefits from conservation would be realized. Overall, it is expected
that using targeted enrollment could increase the quality of lands
enrolled in CRP, resulting in greater environmental benefits. Targeted
enrollment could provide long-term benefits to areas of sensitive
vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, or water quality. Such
benefits could occur throughout the U.S. in any ecoregion where
targeting occurred.
Installation and maintenance of CPs could create temporary, short-
term negative impacts while the work was ongoing to resources,
including vegetation, wildlife, protected species, soils, surface and
groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, and air quality. However, all
activities would be specified in Conservation Plans, designed by NRCS,
which reflect local conditions and needs for each tract of land
enrolled. Once CPs are established, long-term beneficial impacts to
resources would be realized.
Managed Harvesting and Routine Grazing Frequencies
Managed harvesting would be allowed to occur no more frequently
than once every 3 years, but not less frequently than once in 5 years.
This would require four states (California, Colorado, Arizona, and
Nevada) that currently allow managed harvesting once every 10 years to
have more frequent managed harvesting on new contracts where managed
harvesting would be used to maintain CRP. The 2014 Farm Bill allows for
the State Technical Committees (STCs) to establish routine grazing
frequencies of not more than once every 2 years. More frequent
harvesting and grazing could reduce the growing period between
harvests, which may cause short-term negative impacts to some types of
vegetation, potentially affecting wildlife habitat, soil stability, and
any adjacent wetlands, floodplains, or surface waters. Activities with
direct impacts would vary by ecoregion and species composition. Long-
term benefits of harvesting and grazing include maintaining early
succession stages, and improving species diversity, composition, and
function. Wildlife adapted to early successional habitats could benefit
from more frequent harvesting and grazing. Grazing could negatively
affect wildlife through displacement or competition for food resources.
Both grazing and haying could result in direct mortality to some
wildlife species. Protected species are not expected to be affected as
site specific Environmental Evaluations on Conservation Plans would
determine the presence of protected species and ensure no impacts
occur. No effects to groundwater, air quality, recreation, or
socioeconomic resources are anticipated. When performed in accordance
with established guidelines, managed harvesting can be an effective
tool for maintaining early successional stages of vegetative
communities.
Emergency Haying and Grazing on Additional CP
Consecutive years of emergency haying or grazing on the same
acreage would reduce the growth period and could result in long-term
negative impacts to some types of vegetation, in turn affecting
wildlife. Impacts to wildlife could also include direct mortality and
competition for food resources. No impacts to protected species are
expected due to use of site-specific Environmental Evaluations. As with
managed harvesting and routine grazing, short-term impacts to soils
could occur from reduced vegetation growth affecting the stability of
soils. Short-term impacts to surface waters, floodplains, and wetlands
could occur from increased runoff, however, adherence to site-specific
NRCS Conservation Plans and oversight by STC would reduce the potential
for long-term impacts to these resources. No impacts to groundwater are
anticipated. In the short-term, consecutive years of emergency haying
and grazing could reduce the carbon sequestration potential of CRP
vegetation. Socioeconomic benefits would result from enabling producers
to maintain herds during severe droughts.
Rationale for Decision
No significant impacts would occur from implementation of the
Proposed Action and no significant adverse cumulative impacts are
expected. Potential negative impacts will be minimized by employment of
best management practices specified in Conservation Plans and through
the use of site-specific Environmental Evaluations.
Val Dolcini,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency, and Executive Vice President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2015-14988 Filed 6-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
